Agenda item

Public Participation

Mrs Laura James spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Stutchbury spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Harris spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Robin Henderson spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ian Youdan, Woodfalls Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended the application be delegated for approval subject to the completion of an s.106 Legal Agreement and suitable conditions. Key issues were stated to include the design of the proposed bungalows and impact on the wider area, the impact on residential amenity and highways issues. It was noted that highways officers had raised no objections to the application, and that a previous refusal on the site had been for three, two storey dwellings, and the application was for two bungalows.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, where details of the layout and boundaries of the proposed dwellings was sought.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Councillor Leo Randall, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where the level of garden amenity for the proposed dwellings was raised, along with a discussion of the planned layout of the site. Access into the site was raised, as well as safety issues on the highway and impact of the development on the character of the wider area.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.     The proposed development would be located on, and involve the severance of, an existing garden area serving a large dwelling in an area characterised by properties set within large gardens. The proposed dwellings would be located within close proximity to other existing dwellings and would result in the creation of a vehicular access between two existing dwellings.

The proposal, by reason of its design and layout, would result in a cramped development which would not be in-keeping with the spacious character of established surrounding development (in particular, the south-eastern proposed dwelling).  Furthermore, by reason of the cramped layout, the proposal would not provide adequate amenity space for the occupiers of the dwellings commensurate with established surrounding development (in particular, the south-eastern dwelling).  Additionally, the proposed vehicle parking and turning arrangements within the site would be cramped and contrived, and so be likely to lead to conflict and/or nuisance for occupiers of the proposed dwellings.  

This is contrary to Policies G2 and H16 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are ‘saved’ policies in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy) and the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 17, 53 and 56.

2.     The proposed access to the site, by reason of its physical characteristics (specifically, its limited width and its gated design) and by reason of the inevitable intensity in its use (serving three dwellings), is considered to be hazardous for both its users and other users of the public highway.  This is in view of the conflict which would result when vehicles either pause before the electric gate has opened or meet another vehicle head to head at the access, requiring the entering vehicle on the highway to either pause on the highway or reverse on to the highway.  Such a manoeuvre is considered to be hazardous to both the entering vehicle and other users of the highway, and as such would be detrimental to highway safety.

This is contrary to Policy G2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which is a ‘saved’ policy in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy). 

3.    The proposed residential development is considered to be contrary to Policy R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which is a 'saved' policy in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy) and Policy CP3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy in that it does not make provision for contributions towards recreational open space/facilities and affordable housing which are essential infrastructure made necessary by the development.

Councillor Jose Green requested her abstention from the motion be recorded.